German vs. Russian infantry

von Poop, wasn't the 4.5" Medium Field Gun called the "long range rifles" or words to that effect, as opposed to the 5.5" MFG? I remember reading that on one book listing Brit and US artillery, maybe by Ian Hogg but as my books are crated I can't check that.

I suppose we are straying off topic a lot from infantry to artillery.

 

Oh boy , looks like this thread is alive again, din't Za Rodinu's A-bomb kill it?

 

Like I said its a :deadhorse: :zombie1: :zombie2: :zombie3: thread.

 

Maby i need to apologize, when i created this thread i was thinking about tactics, and the Russian human wave tactic. Witch buy ww2 was ineffective since you may send 200 men out and 10 come back and not one thing be accomplished at the cost of 190 men. not a very good tactic.

 

Is that your idea on how the Red Army won the war on the East Front? Victory-by-Dying? Would it be too hard on you if I suggested you need to widen your reading?

I'd run the gauntlet of displeasure and dare to recommend some fundamental books on an Eastern Front library:
Amazon.com: When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies): David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House: Books
Amazon.com: Bagration 1944: The Destruction Of Army Group Centre (Campaign): Steven Zaloga: Books
Amazon.com: The Battle of Kursk (Modern War Studies): David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House: Books
Amazon.com: Red Storm On The Reich: The Soviet March On Germany, 1945: Christopher Duffy: Books

I hope that by this I raised a bit the quality level of discussion in this thread.

 

Come on Za...

We all know the Soviets only ever did human wave assaults in front of HMGs. All the way from Moscow to Berlin.

Sadly people seem unable to read books anymore... If so they would realise that the Soviets developed excellent combined arms tactics, in use from 1941, and were the match of the German Army tactically.

Its a bit like the perception that the Iran-Iraq War was 'just WW1', despite the Iraqi Army performing exemplary combined arms tactics in the final two years.

 

If you don't mind I add Za, I'm reading the Road to Stalingrad and The Road to Berlin. Both are excelent reads and I advise them as well.


Cheers...

 

Sorry guys but I do not quite agree on this "Russia/German" being equal on tactis and deployment.

Fact is, that it took the Russian Army two and a half years to gain back what Germany had overrun within 7 month by December 1941. The events in regards to territorial expansion in 1942 can be considered a stalemate between the two despite gains and losses on both sides.

Looking at the loss statistics in 1942 not to mention 1941, the Russian losses clearly indicate the startegy of stopping Hitler by all means using the reccless starategy of human cassulties. "attrition war". Stalin off course knew that population wise Hitler could not match him on that strategy.

From 1943 onwards the Russians introduced "modern" or lets say the Wehrmacht operational tactics. Due to an average of 3:1 the Russians could gain their victories and the toll on the Wehrmacht rose significantly.

It could therfore be very well quetioned on how the Russians would have performed being on a 1:1 with the Wehrmacht. What changed was primarily their use of tanks in conjunction with artillery (in abundance) against the German HKL. The loss satistics on tanks will again proove the same recclessness which substituted the previous infantry deployment and there losses.

It was basically a crushing of the Wehrmacht by superior numbers applying modern tactics but still at an extreme costs of lives and material due to head on attacks which the German or Western Allies would never have conceeded to.

The reason was that the Wehrmacht simply did not allow the Russians to exploit any outflanking manouvers or attacks that would end up with surrounded German armies (besides Stalingrad), but constantly drew back the HKL on even front. Thus the Russians were faced during the entire drive towards west with a weak but existing German frontline, and could not exploit any breakthroughs despite having far superior numbers.

IIRC it was only between July 1944 and Feb. 1945 that the Russians performed tactical outflanking manouvers or Blitzkrieg tactics - Rumania/Hungaria against the Germans due to the fact that there wasn't any available resistance to be expected.

In contra the Wehrmacht implied sucessful Blitzkrieg tactics against a numerically and materially far superior enemy in the first 12 month of war against Russia.

Regards
Kruska

 

My suggestion to you is that you read Road to Stalingrad first, then Road to Berlin :lol:

Yes, a great work

 

I've already finished Road to Stalingrad

Oh and the Russian tactics Kurska, were not the Wermacht tactics. The Russians developed the Deep field tactics or something like that.
The armies were divided in echelons and each had a specific function. In the winter of 42 was the first time the Russians used that successfully inflicting major defeats on the Germans. It was a sound strategy similar but not copied from the Germans. The Russians were more than capable enough to create their own tactics.



Cheers...

 

man for man and tank for tank germans were superior. that wall it comes down to. granted the is2 was a beast, only around 4000 were built, and they were by no means invincible

 

And yet they still lost didn't they? You may want to read some of the other threads on the subject.

"German stuff is freaking sweet!"

 

Hello HermannHoth,

No they weren't, it was the combination of their newly developed tactics, initial war preperation and superiority in numbers from 1939-1941 that gave them the initial edge. Hitlers racial madness made the whole world turn against him, and as such there was no more numerical superiority for the Germans after 1941 anymore.

Regards
Kruska

 

I seriously doubt that this was the reason that made other countries "turn" against him. There were many other reasons other then his racial policies.

 

Hello Falkenberg,

Churchill despised Hitler due to his racial policies. Hitler used the Olympic games to distract the world from the reputation that the Nazi's were already having. As such he (Churchill) was not willing to compromise with Hitler on any terms regarding a peace treaty after the attack on Poland. France had a socialist-communist government at that time and also opposed Hitlers racial and political views.

Stalin didn't care much since he wasn't much better in regards to "human rights" or democracy either.

Churchill knew very well that Hitler's aim was the destruction of Russia, communism and unworthy live. He could have just sat there for 2-3 years and watch Hitler versus Stalin, but he also etimated that Hitler might win and sooner or later would put his demands towards Britain and the West.

Roosevelt had the same estimates about Hitler's non democratic attitude war plans and racial views.

If not for Churchill and the British, Hitler would have propably made it.

Regards
Kruska

 

the russians were best,they won the war in the east,against the majority of the german armed forces.cheers..

 

That makes it twice in 44-45 than all Tiger I and Tiger II combined since 1942.

​

 

that is true, but the point i was trying to get across is that it would be much more likely that the average german soldier or tank would be going up against a t-34, not a is2. and the quality of russian steel wasnt the best. russians were the best by late 44. ill give you that much

 

is the thread any better now [ i mean the post that started off this thread]